Why Americans Elect Won't Amount to Much

A recent Time magazine commentary (Indie Block) discusses why the third-party presidential nominating organization Americans Elect (AE) has not made the splash that was hoped when it announced its intention last July to nominate a centrist candidate in all 50 states using a web-based, non-partisan nominating process. The commentary claims that AE's lackluster performance is due to a lack of differentiation, as there are already 2 centrists in Romney and Obama, and that the 2 parties are actually talking about the issues that polls indicate matter to voters, so there's not enough frustration to give AE some wind. Beyond the nauseating apologist deference toward the duopoly, the article also has the wrong diagnosis. 

The reasons that AE is not successful are two-fold:

1. Lack of transparency. AE will not reveal its donor list, claiming its to protect donors from retribution by duopoly agents. No doubt there's a possibility of retribution, but it still leaves one wondering if this not another front group like MoveOn.org. That fact that both MoveOn and AE are organized with top-down structures further paints AE as more a co-opter rather than a co-revolter.

2. Playing by the rules instead of changing them. AE has the mula to overcome the inherent barriers to ballot access instituted by the duopoly, and that is the main reason it has gotten as far as it has. Instead of questioning these laws (it could use its funds to challenge ballot access laws in court instead of spending its way past them), AE just wants to expand the duopoly to a triopoly. No wonder folks are not biting.

The fact that even insiders are disgusted enough with the duopoly to attempt something like AE is a symptom of system ripe for change, but its strategy only reifies a dying structure.

Convincing Conservatives To Support MTA

As relayed in previous posts, I have become more involved with the group Move To Amend (MTA), and plan to attend a regional organizing conference later this month. The group's proposed amendment to the US Constitution would firmly clarify that corporations do not carry the same self-evident rights as natural persons. 

MTA has been successful so far generating interest and support for the movement, but this enthusiasm has been largely confined to the political left of the country. If the movement does not reach out to more conservative crowds, passage of this amendment will be extremely more difficult and perhaps doomed to someone's footnote.

Here are 2 major arguments for conservatives why they should support this amendment as written:

1. The "money is not speech" clause will not only affect corporations, but also labor unions. They too would no longer have a constitutional right to spend freely to influence political elections. It means any flushing of money from the system engendered by this amendment will be equally painful for both major parties, and more likely to enable greater party competition that would better represent the diverse views of conservatives (and liberals) alike.
2. Restricting the ability of corporations to influence government policy will make government smaller. The expansion of government has been caused as much by corporate mercantilism as it is by bureaucratic inertia and legislative best intentions.

No doubt other arguments could be made, and the 2 above seem like a good place to start. Now I must convince others in MTA on these points.